I promise: last post about the Patriot Act and my banking woes. One bank already closed my account because my address does not comply with Patriot Act requirements. Now I worry that my other bank will get wise to my terrorist alter-ego and close my accounts there. Then what? No bank ever, anywhere?
I suspected that someone has figured out a solution and did more online research. Yes, a solution exisits–lying to the bank by giving them someone else’s residential address. Wonder if the terrorists figured this out yet?
This means that the address requirement as required in the Patriot Act–designed to prevent terrorists from opening bank accounts and laundering money–can be overcome by simply lying about your address. Gee…that was easy.
Now I wonder about the other Patriot Act requirements? Can they be “worked around”? Is it a foolish act that simply makes US Citizens into terrorist suspects? What about someone who served in the US Military and has an RV park address? After putting their butt in danger to fight terrorists, would they be denied a bank account because of their address? What about the widow or widower of a service person who died in service to our country. Meanwhile, terrorists get to mock the Patriot Act (at least the address part) by simply LYING ABOUT THEIR ADDRESS. This defies logic, reason, and simple ethics. Who was behind the Patriot Act, anyway? Whose bright idea?
Here ya go ( from Wikipedia):
The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001.[1] With its ten-letter backronym (USA PATRIOT) expanded, the full title is “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001“.[2]
From broad concern felt among Americans from both the September 11 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls. On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[7] The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House 357 to 66,[8] with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate by 98 to 1.[9]
Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. He took a stand against the legislation because it increased the federal government’s authority exponentially and didn’t require enough judicial oversight.
Following a lack of Congressional approval, parts of the Patriot Act expired on June 1, 2015.[5] With the passage of theUSA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015, the expired parts were restored and renewed through 2019.[6] However, Section 215 of the law was amended to stop the National Security Agency from continuing its mass phone data collection program.[6]Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.[6]
Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills—none of which were passed—were proposed to amend the USA PATRIOT Act. These included the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act,[22] the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act,[23]and the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE).[24] In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.[25] This highly controversial document was quickly dubbed “PATRIOT II” or “Son of PATRIOT” by the media and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[26] The draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice,[27] proposed to make further extensive modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.[28] It was widely condemned, although the Department of Justice falsely claimed that it was only a draft and contained no further proposals.[29]
Opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many provisions of the act were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sun-setting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act’s original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[10]The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9 and 10, 2006.
n May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act:[3] roving wiretaps, searches of business records, and conducting surveillance of “lone wolves”—individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[4]
My woes stem from this section of the Patriot Act: Title III: Anti-money-laundering to prevent terrorism[edit]
Title III of the Act, titled “International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,” is intended to facilitate the prevention, detection and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It primarily amends portions of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 (MLCA) and the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). It was divided into three subtitles, with the first dealing primarily with strengthening banking rules against money laundering, especially on the international stage. The second attempts to improve communication between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions, as well as expanding record-keeping and reporting requirements. The third subtitle deals with currency smuggling and counterfeiting, including quadrupling the maximum penalty for counterfeiting foreign currency.
The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts.[61]
